she was on a conference on terrorism and she was not linking it to benghazi. it's still not established and proved. in fairness, "the new york times" writer is the only person there among all of the reporters. the transcript does show that she made that connection. but they were all saying at the u.n. that -- >> she's not the first to suggest that. >> matthew olsson testified to it. >> the fact is, whatever confusion there is over whether there was or wasn't terrorism, how the administration handled it has been defused by romney having gone ahead with that press conference, not having reinforcements and said all those stupid things, he's lost the high ground on that issue. >> this is a perfect example. this conversation right here makes my point and makes the point of the romney staffers who are concerned that there is still confusion, there is still chaos in the white house over exactly what happened in benghazi, exactly why a u.s. ambassador was killed, and yet he stepped in front of that story when i suspect the more we look at the situation, willie, the wo